He's better at running the business than the people he's sold it to?He realised the business had reach it's maximum potential and sold it at the top?He is an excellent businessman?

I was more thinking that he knows how to build revenue but not profit?He knows how to sell lemons to idiots?He knows how to frame an investment so that it will tick all the boxes for investment funds?

The answer lies in his bank balance. Isn't that what being a successful businessman is about, maximising profit?

Certainly a lot of the high flyers will always say that one of the highest priorities they have when starting a business is knowing exactly how, where and when they exit.

I'm not convinced by this argument. I recently worked for the footwear retailer Schuh and they have managed to keep going for 30 years. Through a series of management buyouts the owners have all managed to do well out of the company without it going bust. If Hunter had built up decent companies then at least one of them would still be doing well.

He is good at making money for himself by selling bad companies to idiots. At least Branson has managed to keep most of his going for a couple of decades.

He's better at running the business than the people he's sold it to?He realised the business had reach it's maximum potential and sold it at the top?He is an excellent businessman?

I was more thinking that he knows how to build revenue but not profit?He knows how to sell lemons to idiots?He knows how to frame an investment so that it will tick all the boxes for investment funds?

The answer lies in his bank balance. Isn't that what being a successful businessman is about, maximising profit?

Certainly a lot of the high flyers will always say that one of the highest priorities they have when starting a business is knowing exactly how, where and when they exit.

I'm not convinced by this argument. I recently worked for the footwear retailer Schuh and they have managed to keep going for 30 years. Through a series of management buyouts the owners have all managed to do well out of the company without it going bust. If Hunter had built up decent companies then at least one of them would still be doing well.

He is good at making money for himself by selling bad companies to idiots. At least Branson has managed to keep most of his going for a couple of decades.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

What exactly do you know about Tom Hunter or the business that he has been involved in? Nothing? I've met the people who have been left out of pocket because they haven't been paid, they didn't get to share in his 'success'.

If your idea of success is getting rich at the expense of all others then I'm glad not everyone is like you.

What exactly do you know about Tom Hunter or the business that he has been involved in? Nothing? I've met the people who have been left out of pocket because they haven't been paid, they didn't get to share in his 'success'.

If your idea of success is getting rich at the expense of all others then I'm glad not everyone is like you.

I know he's a billionaire, I reckon that makes him a success. His next venture is a commitment to give it all away to good causes. In my book that makes him a pretty spot on sort of guy.

"My wife Marion and myself are going to leave this world as we came into it – pretty much with nothing. I don't want to take £1billion to my grave with me. I am being responsible in setting out a way in which this money can go. I have been thinking about it a lot."

Alan Sugar admitted himself he sold it at the wrong time. Had he sold it earlier it would have been worth hundreds of millions and not the paltry 120 million (I actually thought it was 90 million but hey ho) he got for it.

Still 120 million isn't too shabby is it?

That's why we don't have a silicon valley, if he had invested in technology and actually had vision it could have been worth billions.

In the late 1980's Amstrad turned over £600m which was about half Microsofts and 1/5th of Apples at the time. However those two companies were founded by IT geeks who wanted to make cool stuff hence they employed people who were innovative, set up huge R&D departments and pursued numerous different product lines and business models being perfectly happy to write off R&D if it didn't bare fruit.

Can you really imagine Sugar leading Amstrad in such a way?

Sugar was wheeler dealer opportunist who briefly had a business model which worked. He would always have been a millionaire even if he hadn't been lucky, but he would never be a good CEO.

Alan Sugar admitted himself he sold it at the wrong time. Had he sold it earlier it would have been worth hundreds of millions and not the paltry 120 million (I actually thought it was 90 million but hey ho) he got for it.

Still 120 million isn't too shabby is it?

That's why we don't have a silicon valley, if he had invested in technology and actually had vision it could have been worth billions.

In the late 1980's Amstrad turned over £600m which was about half Microsofts and 1/5th of Apples at the time. However those two companies were founded by IT geeks who wanted to make cool stuff hence they employed people who were innovative, set up huge R&D departments and pursued numerous different product lines and business models being perfectly happy to write off R&D if it didn't bare fruit.

Can you really imagine Sugar leading Amstrad in such a way?

Sugar was wheeler dealer opportunist who briefly had a business model which worked. He would always have been a millionaire even if he hadn't been lucky, but he would never be a good CEO.

Everytime Sugar is mentioned on here this comparison with Apple / Microsoft is dragged out. It is a bit like saying in 1960 my grandfather was richer than Bill Gates but failed to secure a monopoly in PC operating systems.....

Alan Sugar was not trying to be in the same business or do the same kind of things as MSC / Apple. The clue is in the trading bit of the company name, he set out to be a trader and was successful at it.